Article Three. Concerning Absolution of One's Own Accomplice.

¹ Famous is the constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum poenitentiae (June 1, 1741), for the declaration of which the same pontiff afterward issued the constitution Apostolici muneris (February 8, 1745) and, on March 17, 1749, issued the third constitution Inter praeteritos. That constitution chiefly contains three things: concerning solicitation in confession, concerning calumnious denunciation of the confessor as if soliciting, and concerning absolution of an accomplice. And since in these constitutions it is chiefly provided, not only that delinquents be punished, but especially that worthy administration of the sacrament of penance be procured: the highest indecency is found in this, that a priest hears the confession of a person with whom he committed shameful sin and so acts as judge in a crime of which he himself is a participant; and the highest indecency likewise is contained in this, that further confessions are heard by a priest soliciting in confession, since he who rushes headlong into spiritual ruin ought to absolve and preserve another from sin. Finally, the supreme pontiff also intended to remove the dangers of sinning: for a new temptation and likewise a repeated delict must always be feared in a confessor who solicits or absolves an accomplice.

¹ Aertnys, De sollicitatione et absolutione complicis (Faenza, Novelli, 1897). Ian. Bucceroni, Commentarius in constitutionem Benedicti XIV Sacramentum poenitentiae (Rome: Typogr. prop. fid., 1888).

369. Declarations. 1. An accomplice is said to be one who commits the same sin (a shameful sin) with another, whether both act, as in mutual touches and conversations, or only one acts, e.g., one touches the other and this one consents and manifests consent externally. But he who externally does not resist is already considered to manifest consent externally.

a. Hence complicity properly so called is not had if a priest sins with one sleeping, drunk, insane, or unwilling; for the law speaks of formal complicity, for which the consent of both parties in the same sin is required.

b. To incur the case of complicity, immediate complicity in the shameful action itself is required; cooperation, however proximate, toward the shameful sin of another does not suffice.

2. By the person who is an accomplice is understood anyone with whom the priest committed a shameful sin, whether female or male or a boy, even not yet pubescent, indeed even a person with whom the priest sinned before receiving priesthood;¹ for the bull says: whatever person is the accomplice.

3. Under the name of shameful sin is comprehended any sin against the sixth precept, even if it was not consummated by copula, indeed even if it is only a shameful touch or glance or an immodest conversation.² But it is required that the sin be, on both sides, certain, external, and grave, both by reason of the internal act and by reason of the external act.

Hence that complicity of which the pontifical constitution speaks is not had if the sins are only internal, or only venial either internally or externally, or only doubtful, whether with doubt of law or doubt of fact.

¹ Holy Penitentiary, January 22, 1879.

² Holy Office, May 18, 1873.

370. Concerning the Forbidden Absolution of One's Own Accomplice. 1. Absolution of an accomplice in a shameful sin is not only gravely illicit but also invalid, except in danger of death.¹

a. The cited canon does not change those things which are contained on this matter in the bull Sacramentum poenitentiae. Therefore the confessor is deprived of jurisdiction over the shameful sin of complicity, but not also over the other sins of the same penitent. Therefore if the penitent confesses other sins before the confessor-accomplice directly, the sins of complicity are remitted indirectly, provided the penitent is rightly disposed.

b. Whether the priest-accomplice lacks jurisdiction over his accomplice as regards the sin of complicity perpetually, or only until this sin has been directly remitted, is not established. I would say that a confessor-accomplice can absolve the penitent-accomplice not only from other sins but also from the sin of complicity after this has already once been directly remitted. In this sense most authors have explained the bull Sacramentum poenitentiae.

c. If the priest-accomplice absolves his own accomplice in good faith, either because he is ignorant that he lacks jurisdiction, or because he does not advert that the penitent is his own accomplice, the absolution is invalid, because no ignorance of invalidating or incapacitating laws excuses from those laws.²

d. If the penitent-accomplice who is absolved by the priest-accomplice is in good faith, and likewise if he does not declare the sin of complicity, the other sins are remitted directly and the sins of complicity indirectly.

2. A confessor-accomplice:

a. who absolves, or pretends to absolve, an accomplice in a shameful sin incurs by that very fact an excommunication reserved to the apostolic see in a most special manner;

b. incurs the same also when absolving, or pretending to absolve, an accomplice in the article of death, if another priest, even one not approved, can hear the confession of the dying person without grave infamy and scandal, excepting the case in which the dying person refuses to confess to another;

c. finally incurs the same when absolving, or pretending to absolve, an accomplice who does not confess the sin of complicity from which he has not yet been absolved, but so conducts himself because he has been induced to this by the confessor-accomplice, whether directly or indirectly.³

Note. The confessor-accomplice must be warned never to hear the confession of his accomplice outside necessity; if, however, the latter confesses to him after having already been absolved by another from the sin of complicity, he is absolved validly, indeed even licitly, unless this has been prohibited to him by the particular law of the diocese or by the Sacred Penitentiary.

¹ Cn. 884.

² Cn. 16, 1.

³ Cn. 2367, 1, 2. The excommunication is explained in the booklet De Poenis ecclesiasticis. But the penitent-accomplice incurs no penalty, nor is his sin reserved by common law.

371. When a Priest Can Validly and Licitly Absolve His Own Accomplice:

a. In the article or danger of death: a. if no other priest is present or can be called, not even a simple one; b. if another refuses to hear the confession of the dying person; g. if the dying person refuses to confess to another, so that a sacrilegious confession is to be feared; d. if another priest cannot be called without grave scandal or infamy of the priest-accomplice.¹

This is clear from the bull of the holy pontiff, who confers jurisdiction on the priest-accomplice lest the dying person perish. Nevertheless, in this case the priest-accomplice is bound to forestall the danger of scandal or infamy, if he can, e.g., by withdrawing under some pretext; but if he omits to do this, though he can, or if he invents a danger of scandal or infamy where there is none, he indeed absolves validly, lest the dying person perish, but he acts illicitly and incurs the censure.

b. In gravest necessity. Although the supreme pontiff by the law itself excepts only extreme necessity, nevertheless by epikeia the priest can absolve his own accomplice also in gravest necessity. For it is scarcely credible that the supreme pontiff wished that this law, although prohibiting and invalidating, should also oblige in circumstances of this kind; wherefore in cases of gravest necessity the law is rightly said to suffer an exception.²

a. The authors imagine this case of gravest necessity: a woman has fallen into a shameful sin with a priest and has no other priest there with whom she may confess, and the circumstances of persons, place, etc., are such that she cannot turn elsewhere to seek a confessor, nor does any hope shine forth that another priest will ever come there (which can happen in mission places);³ or the precept of annual confession and communion urges this woman-accomplice; she cannot omit the reception of the sacraments without grave scandal and infamy, but no other confessor is present, nor can the woman move to another place to seek a confessor.

b. This exception will be granted all the more easily because the human law, although invalidating, collides not only with the natural law of avoiding scandal and with the natural right of avoiding infamy, but also with the divine law commanding holy communion to be received at times; further, because otherwise the woman would have to lack the benefit of absolution for a very long time, indeed perhaps through her whole life until death, which is altogether foreign to the mind of the Church.

¹ Cn. 2367.

² Cf. Gury-Ballerini at n. 587.

³ Moreover, in a case of gravest necessity the confessor can seek the faculty of absolving an accomplice, and it is not necessary that he reveal himself; for he can seek the faculty under a covered name and use the faculty once obtained. Bucceroni n. 49.